Book 2 – Text Updates 011

Page by page discussion of the comic.

Re: Book 2 – Text Updates 011

Postby the_tick_rules » Sun Jan 24, 2010 7:20 pm

Duncan looks like one of Lando's assistant guys from cloud city.
I would be a procrastinator, but I keep putting it off.
User avatar
the_tick_rules
 
Posts: 966
Joined: Mon May 11, 2009 11:36 pm

Re: Book 2 – Text Updates 011

Postby SuperDuperHai2U » Sun Jan 24, 2010 7:41 pm

My take on the 'Titans are laughing' is that since Titans are large and a breath can probably topple a mountain, a battle between Jilian and Wanda could be cataclysmic.

Nice headset, looks very good for jogging.
SuperDuperHai2U
 
Posts: 13
Joined: Wed Nov 04, 2009 8:39 pm

Re: Book 2 – Text Updates 011

Postby Oberon » Sun Jan 24, 2010 7:44 pm

Yucca wrote:Circular reasoning. The discussion is about "what counts when categorizing something as an artifact", you can't simply assume that "origin doesn't". You are taking your conclusion as a premise in your reasoning.
No, I am taking the characters statements as the premise for my reasoning. And I have used quotations. Maybe you could do the same?
Yucca wrote:Buying the spell was an economic transaction, therefore we can assume that both parties agreed that the spell was worth 350k.
Which is exactly the conclusion I was defending when you claimed:
Yucca wrote:If it was an economic transaction then you might have a basis for this assertion, but it wasn't.
Thank you for proving yourself wrong yet again!
Yucca wrote:Casting the spell and what comes after that are not an economic transaction.
The are in my thought experiment showing the bracer being sold for far more than the value of the spell scroll that provided the bracer, while also leaving the purchaser of the spell scroll with a smart Warlord and two other magic items. I'm sorry, I seem to have forgotten what point you were trying to make here, if any...

Oberon wrote:This is not relevant. The scroll was for sale to anyone who had the shmuckers. The fact that GK bought it while in a desperate position is important to the story line, but not important to the cost and the effect of the scroll.
Yucca wrote:I had the feeling that it was a custom job designed at Wanda's request. Regardless, it's relevant to the story, and therefore it most definitely is relevant to the effect.
In the first sentence, this is your speculation and has nothing to back it. "The Findamancers and Predictamancers have forged a spell" does not even begin to hint that this was done at Wanda's suggestion. In the second sentence, please tell me how a spell scroll purchasable by anyone makes the effect, a greater return value than the purchase price, different than it would be for anyone else who bought it? Again, the fact that GK bought the scroll rather than some other side does not change the effect of the scroll. To suggest such has no basis.
Oberon wrote:The bracer without the watch would not have helped to achieve that goal at all, and thus would never have happened.
Yucca wrote:Right, if Parson hadn't been wearing the watch the spell wouldn't have given him the bracer. Like I said, a chance at a huge payoff, but not a sure thing. Very common in the genre.
Just wrong thinking, and contrary to what we have been specifically told within the story. The summoning spell gave Parson the bracer to "fix its boop-up" and make him the Perfect Warlord. If he were not wearing the watch, he would have, by any logic that accepts that what we have been told within the story is correct - That the spell was correcting its mistake by providing Parson with potent items - been given something else just as potent. You can argue that it was only a chance based upon Parson wearing the watch, but we have been told otherwise within the story. We have been told that the spell is deliberately giving him items he can use to become the perfect Warlord, not items that are worthless to him because they are incomplete without a watch he isn't wearing. When comparing your speculation to the story, I'll believe the story, thanks.

Yucca wrote:
Oberon wrote:Plus the value of Parson with glasses and sword. I'm happy to be proven wrong on the other side of the argument. :) It's just more support for the position that artifacts can be created by casters.


No it isn't. Disproving that "only equals can summon each other" weakens your argument.
First, I never said anything like "only equals can summon each other." I said that an item exchanged for another can be said to have the same value. And the context was in my attempting to demonstrate that an item that can summon an artifact must be considered to be an artifact. Showing that the item in question can actually summon more than an artifact does indeed only help my case: An item that can summon an artifact and several other magic items, plus a skilled Warlord, must be considered to be an artifact.

And thus casters can create artifacts.
How using capslock wins arguments:
Zeroberon wrote:So we know with 100% certainty that THIS IS HOW TRI-LINKS WORK, PERIOD END OF STORY.
Oberon
 
Posts: 1191
Joined: Wed Jun 17, 2009 7:59 am

Re: Book 2 – Text Updates 011

Postby BCCroaker » Sun Jan 24, 2010 7:54 pm

That thing Duncan is wearing makes me think of an Aug, but then I've been reading a lot of Neal Asher lately.
Anybody got any ideas about his surname referencing something? Scone=cake or confectionary? Stone of Scone?
BCCroaker
Tool + YOTD Supporter!
Tool + YOTD Supporter!
 
Posts: 182
Joined: Mon Oct 12, 2009 11:17 am

Re: Book 2 – Text Updates 011

Postby dan2178 » Sun Jan 24, 2010 7:59 pm

BCCroaker wrote:That thing Duncan is wearing makes me think of an Aug, but then I've been reading a lot of Neal Asher lately.
Anybody got any ideas about his surname referencing something? Scone=cake or confectionary? Stone of Scone?


My take is "Scone" = the baked good which would fit with "Duncan" coming from the Duncan Hines brand of cake/brownie mixes sold in the US.
dan2178
 
Posts: 40
Joined: Sun Dec 20, 2009 2:22 pm

Re: Book 2 – Text Updates 011

Postby theseus2x » Sun Jan 24, 2010 8:02 pm

Oberon wrote:
theseus2x wrote:Maybe Baldur mucked up.
Well, yeah. That is the only real conclusion one can draw from the chain of logic.

1) Buy a summoning spell for 350,000 shmuckers;
2) Get a damn good Warlord;
3) Get a pair of glasses useless to anyone but your new Warlord (duplicates an ability everyone else has);
4) Get a bracer worth 500,000+ shmuckers;
5) Get a magic item sword;
6) Sell bracer, now you have a 500,000+ shmuckers and a useful Warlord with a magic sword;
7) Go to step 1 and ***PROFIT***


Haha.

Do we KNOW they can make more Summoning spells?
User avatar
theseus2x
 
Posts: 439
Joined: Thu Nov 12, 2009 11:01 pm

Re: Book 2 – Text Updates 011

Postby BCCroaker » Sun Jan 24, 2010 8:05 pm

dan2178 wrote:
BCCroaker wrote:That thing Duncan is wearing makes me think of an Aug, but then I've been reading a lot of Neal Asher lately.
Anybody got any ideas about his surname referencing something? Scone=cake or confectionary? Stone of Scone?


My take is "Scone" = the baked good which would fit with "Duncan" coming from the Duncan Hines brand of cake/brownie mixes sold in the US.

Thanks, that makes sense! Sometimes we don't get the US refererences on the other side of the pond.
BCCroaker
Tool + YOTD Supporter!
Tool + YOTD Supporter!
 
Posts: 182
Joined: Mon Oct 12, 2009 11:17 am

Re: Book 2 – Text Updates 011

Postby MonteCristo » Sun Jan 24, 2010 8:10 pm

Oberon wrote:First, I never said anything like "only equals can summon each other." I said that an item exchanged for another can be said to have the same value. And the context was in my attempting to demonstrate that an item that can summon an artifact must be considered to be an artifact. Showing that the item in question can actually summon more than an artifact does indeed only help my case: An item that can summon an artifact and several other magic items, plus a skilled Warlord, must be considered to be an artifact.

And thus casters can create artifacts.


You did not prove that, you disproved it
your claim is that "An item that can summon an artifact and several other magic items, plus a skilled Warlord, must be considered to be an artifact"
but why was that? it was because "an item exchanged for another can be said to have the same value"
However, you yourself have pointed out that summoning spell was worth only 350k where as the bracer it gave Parson was worth 500K... and that's in addition to summoning a great warlord and supplying him with magic items... this in and of itself PROVES that the summoning spell DID summon something of GREATER value of its self; summon spell <<<< warlord+bracer+whatever... and if we consider that an artifact is more valuable than a magic item this in turn means that it is more than possible for a mortal created magic item(the scroll) to summon a titan created artifact.

So all in all, you assertion that "an item exchanged for another can be said to have the same value" has been proven wrong because "Summon spell <<<< warlord+bracer+whatever"
and that as in effect, took away support from your claim that "An item that can summon an artifact and several other magic items, plus a skilled Warlord, must be considered to be an artifact"
Last edited by MonteCristo on Sun Jan 24, 2010 8:16 pm, edited 2 times in total.
User avatar
MonteCristo
YOTD Supporter!
YOTD Supporter!
 
Posts: 371
Joined: Tue Oct 13, 2009 7:48 pm

Re: Book 2 – Text Updates 011

Postby theseus2x » Sun Jan 24, 2010 8:13 pm

Jeivar wrote:Interesting to get to know Duncan a little.

And to add my two cents to the theory-stew: My first and current thought on reading that last line was that the possible battle would be extremely intense, destructive, and unpredictable. Two awesome forces clashing.


If all things stand as is : No. Even Duncan concedes in a direct battle, Faq wouldn't have a prayer against GK's numbers.

Naturally, Duncan (and us, the readers) are banking on things NOT standing as is.

Jeivar wrote:On a side note; Has an upper limit for levels ever been established? I'm wondering what Jillian's 9-or-10 levels really mean.


I believe Level 10 should be considered the max until proven otherwise.
User avatar
theseus2x
 
Posts: 439
Joined: Thu Nov 12, 2009 11:01 pm

Re: Book 2 – Text Updates 011

Postby Sinrus » Sun Jan 24, 2010 8:14 pm

Oberon wrote:
Yucca wrote:Circular reasoning. The discussion is about "what counts when categorizing something as an artifact", you can't simply assume that "origin doesn't". You are taking your conclusion as a premise in your reasoning.
No, I am taking the characters statements as the premise for my reasoning. And I have used quotations. Maybe you could do the same?
Yucca wrote:Buying the spell was an economic transaction, therefore we can assume that both parties agreed that the spell was worth 350k.
Which is exactly the conclusion I was defending when you claimed:
Yucca wrote:If it was an economic transaction then you might have a basis for this assertion, but it wasn't.
Thank you for proving yourself wrong yet again!
Yucca wrote:Casting the spell and what comes after that are not an economic transaction.
The are in my thought experiment showing the bracer being sold for far more than the value of the spell scroll that provided the bracer, while also leaving the purchaser of the spell scroll with a smart Warlord and two other magic items. I'm sorry, I seem to have forgotten what point you were trying to make here, if any...

Oberon wrote:This is not relevant. The scroll was for sale to anyone who had the shmuckers. The fact that GK bought it while in a desperate position is important to the story line, but not important to the cost and the effect of the scroll.
Yucca wrote:I had the feeling that it was a custom job designed at Wanda's request. Regardless, it's relevant to the story, and therefore it most definitely is relevant to the effect.
In the first sentence, this is your speculation and has nothing to back it. "The Findamancers and Predictamancers have forged a spell" does not even begin to hint that this was done at Wanda's suggestion. In the second sentence, please tell me how a spell scroll purchasable by anyone makes the effect, a greater return value than the purchase price, different than it would be for anyone else who bought it? Again, the fact that GK bought the scroll rather than some other side does not change the effect of the scroll. To suggest such has no basis.
Oberon wrote:The bracer without the watch would not have helped to achieve that goal at all, and thus would never have happened.
Yucca wrote:Right, if Parson hadn't been wearing the watch the spell wouldn't have given him the bracer. Like I said, a chance at a huge payoff, but not a sure thing. Very common in the genre.
Just wrong thinking, and contrary to what we have been specifically told within the story. The summoning spell gave Parson the bracer to "fix its boop-up" and make him the Perfect Warlord. If he were not wearing the watch, he would have, by any logic that accepts that what we have been told within the story is correct - That the spell was correcting its mistake by providing Parson with potent items - been given something else just as potent. You can argue that it was only a chance based upon Parson wearing the watch, but we have been told otherwise within the story. We have been told that the spell is deliberately giving him items he can use to become the perfect Warlord, not items that are worthless to him because they are incomplete without a watch he isn't wearing. When comparing your speculation to the story, I'll believe the story, thanks.

Yucca wrote:
Oberon wrote:Plus the value of Parson with glasses and sword. I'm happy to be proven wrong on the other side of the argument. :) It's just more support for the position that artifacts can be created by casters.


No it isn't. Disproving that "only equals can summon each other" weakens your argument.
First, I never said anything like "only equals can summon each other." I said that an item exchanged for another can be said to have the same value. And the context was in my attempting to demonstrate that an item that can summon an artifact must be considered to be an artifact. Showing that the item in question can actually summon more than an artifact does indeed only help my case: An item that can summon an artifact and several other magic items, plus a skilled Warlord, must be considered to be an artifact.

And thus casters can create artifacts.


Lets move back a bit. What proof do you have that the bracer is an artifact?
User avatar
Sinrus
 
Posts: 824
Joined: Thu Dec 03, 2009 5:00 pm

Re: Book 2 – Text Updates 011

Postby Oberon » Sun Jan 24, 2010 8:15 pm

MonteCristo wrote:Artifacts are by definition, items created by the titans... magic items are be definition, are created by mortals... they are not defined by their level of power, but by their origin.
Please demonstrate this, using the source. We have contradictory statements from Sizemore, neither position can be proven conclusively. Sizemore does indeed tell Parson that magic items are created by casters. He also speculates that the bracer may be an artifact, and the context was its power level, not its source of origin. All he knows about the bracer at the time of his speculation is that it is powerful to the point of being worth a huge amount of shmuckers. He was judging on power level, not on origin.

And probably Sizemore knew that it came with Parson's rations, since this is a very likely off-screen conversation. Speculation? Yes, but well within the characterization of both characters, and within the context of the discussion they were having about the nature of magic items, caster types, links, etc. You can't have a web comic with text filling every frame. A very likely discussion to the point of stupidity on both characters part if it did not occur. Can we agree that both Parson and Sizemore are shown to be far smarter than for Parson to ask Sizemore to identify his bracer without telling him where it came from, or for Sizemore to fail to ask, or for Parson to refuse to tell him if he did ask? I would hope so.

MonteCristo wrote:If the spell did indeed CREATE the bracer itself then the bracers is a magic item, however if the bracer was CREATED by the titans or erfworld itself and the spell merely the delivery system, then it is an artifact
I'll again ask what the difference is. Not in some semantics "Oh, the spell is just a transport method, it didn't create the artifact." Yeah, and does that matter, at all? If Parson has an artifact because of a spell, what is the REAL, MEASURABLE difference here? Who wants to argue methods, rather than results? Where is the logic in that?

Overlord - A spell scroll I bought ended up with me having powerful magic item or a artifact worth 150,000 shmuckers more than the spell scroll cost, plus a smart Warlord, magic glasses that help him, and a magic sword. Sweet!

Caster - Um, sir. The scroll is actually much weaker than you think. It did not create those items, it only placed them in your possession.

Overlord - What, you're telling me that the spell scroll sucks because it merely transported those things into my possession, and did not actually create them? Well, who fucking cares what you think, I still think it's the best thing since buttered bread!

MonteCristo wrote:He [Sizemore] did not make a "judgement" only a speculation, a judgement would mean that he had come to a conclusion; he never concluded that it was an artifact, just that it MIGHT be an artifact
That is a judgment. "I judge that this is a powerful magic item, maybe an artifact." Are you a native English speaker? Or are you trying again to use semantics to prove your unprovable position?
How using capslock wins arguments:
Zeroberon wrote:So we know with 100% certainty that THIS IS HOW TRI-LINKS WORK, PERIOD END OF STORY.
Oberon
 
Posts: 1191
Joined: Wed Jun 17, 2009 7:59 am

Re: Book 2 – Text Updates 011

Postby fjolnir » Sun Jan 24, 2010 8:35 pm

Also Duncan Scone's name refers to the multiple references to coffee that his former side (jitterati) had, a scone is a type of hard biscuit that at least in America is eaten as an accompaniment to a liquid like tea, coffee or milk, and usually dunked inside them.
User avatar
fjolnir
 
Posts: 358
Joined: Fri May 01, 2009 1:40 am

Re: Book 2 – Text Updates 011

Postby Yucca » Sun Jan 24, 2010 8:56 pm

OK, without responding point by point, this is what I see going on here. The discussion is on the question of "can mortal casters create artifacts"

Here is my understanding of what Oberon is saying:
    We know that the Summon Perfect Warlord Spell was created by mortal casters
    We know that the summoning spell is responsible for the bracer
    He assumes that the bracer is an artifact
    He assumes that anything that provides you with an artifact must be considered an artifact by itself

His reasoning goes like this: 1.The bracer is an artifact. 2. Only artifacts can provide artifacts. 3. The spell provided an artifact. 4. Therefore the spell is an artifact. 5. The spell was created by mortal casters. 6. Therefore mortal casters are able to create artifacts.

There are three flaws.

First, he has provided no strong evidence for point 1. Sizemore said "maybe artifact" when he was still unsure of the object's origin. Yes that's a reference to the objects "power level", but it was made in absence of knowledge of the object's creator. If he knew it was mortally created and still said that then it would be stronger evidence. Sizemore made a definitive comment earlier in the story about the dividing line being the creator.

Flaw two: No evidence what so ever for point 2. None. Even his logic is shaky.

Number 3 flaw: Point 1 assumes that mortals can make artifacts. Since we know that the bracer is mortal made, using this as a basic premise is akin to saying "If I assume that mortals can make artifacts, then I can prove that mortals can make artifacts."

To be clear: this is how I interpret his posts. I'm not trying to force a straw man on anyone.
Yucca
 
Posts: 50
Joined: Tue Jun 09, 2009 10:05 pm

Re: Book 2 – Text Updates 011

Postby MonteCristo » Sun Jan 24, 2010 9:27 pm

Oberon wrote:
MonteCristo wrote:Artifacts are by definition, items created by the titans... magic items are be definition, are created by mortals... they are not defined by their level of power, but by their origin.
Please demonstrate this, using the source. We have contradictory statements from Sizemore, neither position can be proven conclusively. Sizemore does indeed tell Parson that magic items are created by casters. He also speculates that the bracer may be an artifact, and the context was its power level, not its source of origin. All he knows about the bracer at the time of his speculation is that it is powerful to the point of being worth a huge amount of shmuckers. He was judging on power level, not on origin.

And probably Sizemore knew that it came with Parson's rations, since this is a very likely off-screen conversation. Speculation? Yes, but well within the characterization of both characters, and within the context of the discussion they were having about the nature of magic items, caster types, links, etc. You can't have a web comic with text filling every frame. A very likely discussion to the point of stupidity on both characters part if it did not occur. Can we agree that both Parson and Sizemore are shown to be far smarter than for Parson to ask Sizemore to identify his bracer without telling him where it came from, or for Sizemore to fail to ask, or for Parson to refuse to tell him if he did ask? I would hope so.


My proof is simply pointing out that what sizemore said was NOT a contradiction
The bracer came from parson's ration, this much he knows... however this does NOT tell him how the bracer was created. He does not know if this was a pure creation of the spell as a way of correcting itself (magic item); if the spell was teleporting items from other parts of erfworld (either); if the spell was asking the titans to aid it (artifact); or if this was unrelated to the spell and the titans just looked favorably upon parson and provided him with an artifact... Hell, it could be that artifacts occasionally due just pop out of nowhere; and since they were not made by mortals these objects would be considered artifacts... maybe they do occasionally pop in the hands of warlords and casters as a random and rare occurance... hell afterall, where else do you think non-arkentool artifacts come from? normally they likely just pop randomly

overall, the point is that sizemore does know it came from Parson rations, but he does NOT know how it was created and therefore does not know if it is a magic item or an artifact... the "how" it was created is the determining factor and Sizemore did not know then.

MonteCristo wrote:If the spell did indeed CREATE the bracer itself then the bracers is a magic item, however if the bracer was CREATED by the titans or erfworld itself and the spell merely the delivery system, then it is an artifact
I'll again ask what the difference is. Not in some semantics "Oh, the spell is just a transport method, it didn't create the artifact." Yeah, and does that matter, at all? If Parson has an artifact because of a spell, what is the REAL, MEASURABLE difference here? Who wants to argue methods, rather than results? Where is the logic in that?

Overlord - A spell scroll I bought ended up with me having powerful magic item or a artifact worth 150,000 shmuckers more than the spell scroll cost, plus a smart Warlord, magic glasses that help him, and a magic sword. Sweet!

Caster - Um, sir. The scroll is actually much weaker than you think. It did not create those items, it only placed them in your possession.

Overlord - What, you're telling me that the spell scroll sucks because it merely transported those things into my possession, and did not actually create them? Well, who fucking cares what you think, I still think it's the best thing since buttered bread!

Caster: well sir, if the scroll actually CREATED the warlord and items then you could get more by just buying more scrolls; you could potentially have a whole team of super brilliant perfect warlords armed to the teeth with nice magical items... however if the scroll can only teleport them then you couldn't use the scroll multiple times because it will not work as you already have the "perfect warlord"... at best their is a possibility that the scroll will summon "the next best warlord", but they will not be as good as the first one you got... should i also mention that possibility that someone else might buy this same scroll and STEAL the perfect warlord from you?
User avatar
MonteCristo
YOTD Supporter!
YOTD Supporter!
 
Posts: 371
Joined: Tue Oct 13, 2009 7:48 pm

Re: Book 2 – Text Updates 011

Postby Thydron » Sun Jan 24, 2010 9:34 pm

about the summoning spells 350k price against the bracers 500k valuation:
350k is what the casters asked for it - it's possible that they didn't know the full extent of what the spell could do when they sold it to wanda. or that they created the spell, realised the true value was too much for anyone to pay, and sold it at a loss to get at least some smuckers for it.
some things in erfworld seem to have a fixed, titan-determined value - like popping a unit, or promoting a warlord. other don't, like charlies contracts, and buying the spell. the 2nd category leaves lots of room for people to get the prices they offer/pay wrong compared to somethings true value; if the casters knew the summoning spell was also going to give the buying side a 500k toy, they would have told wanda and charged a higher price for it.
gk got a good deal - simple as that.

and about the scroll artifact/magic item/mortal thing - in page 35, sizemore & parsons panel 1 discussion about the eyebooks says that they cannot be artifacts because they were created by mortals; we know the scroll was created by mortals, so it cant be an artifact.
Thydron
Erfabet Supporter!
Erfabet Supporter!
 
Posts: 41
Joined: Fri Apr 24, 2009 10:56 pm

Re: Book 2 – Text Updates 011

Postby multilis » Sun Jan 24, 2010 10:44 pm

"If A, B, and C are all true, GK essentially swapped 350,000 shmuckers for 500,000+ shmuckers."

Happens quite commonly in some games/maps in non repeatable fashion.

Eg summon frog for 40 mana may allow frog to swim out and get mana worth 100 on same turn, on a one time basis.

Summon hero *may* if lucky get the best hero worth many many times more than the cost to summon. (Spell will *fail* when no more heros left)

Trimancer link worth 200K shmuckers to hire for single turn from magic kingdom may once yield 1000K in gems from your local dormant volcano mountain.

*If* the bracer is an artifact then the "Summon perfect warlord spell" would only be able to add a bracer if one was left somewheres in universe, otherwise spell would fail or give an inferior/different "perfect warlord". (Eg perhaps warlord who naturally is good with battle odds, but needs "Sun Tzu's War Book" artifact to grasp all the strategy ideas Parson already knows)
multilis
 
Posts: 531
Joined: Fri Aug 07, 2009 2:57 am

Re: Book 2 – Text Updates 011

Postby name lips » Sun Jan 24, 2010 11:09 pm

How did the mortal casters who made the summoning spell know how to make a bracer that fit onto a calculator watch?

The specific design of that bracer had to come from somewhere, right? Can magic "just know" how to do things that are beyond the knowledge of its casters?

Since we're all speculating without any real knowledge of what's really going on, I'll propose another theory that is just as plausible.

The casters made the scroll, Wanda used it, the Titans said "Hey, what a cool spell, let's make it happen by teleporting this Parson guy and designing a nice Artifact bracer for him. It'll take a couple turns to design the Artifact, but I'm sure they won't mind the delay."

I mean, really, we don't know squat do we?
name lips
 
Posts: 235
Joined: Mon Jul 27, 2009 12:35 pm

Re: Book 2 – Text Updates 011

Postby Sinrus » Sun Jan 24, 2010 11:23 pm

That's exactly what I think happened.
User avatar
Sinrus
 
Posts: 824
Joined: Thu Dec 03, 2009 5:00 pm

Re: Book 2 – Text Updates 011

Postby MonteCristo » Mon Jan 25, 2010 12:44 am

Ya i do think there is MORE to the summoning spell than even the caster who made it know.
sure they said it would find a warlord anywhere in existence, but could they really comprehend what that could possible entail... anywhere in erfworld, sure, anywhere in their unvierse ok, but other dimensions/universes that do not operate on erfworld's logic? phew...

Hell even though Wanda's the one who found out about the spell and used it, she was the one who believes that it was erfworld wished for parson... could be that there is more turth to that than we know, like erfworld hijacked the summoning spell for it's own ends... like erfworld can't do these things itself, it needs that extra helping hand; the lord only helps those who helps themselves and all that... it could be that if anyone else were to use the summoning spell, all they would get is the best warlord in erfworld, and not parson or anyone else from another universe.
User avatar
MonteCristo
YOTD Supporter!
YOTD Supporter!
 
Posts: 371
Joined: Tue Oct 13, 2009 7:48 pm

Re: Book 2 – Text Updates 011

Postby the_tick_rules » Mon Jan 25, 2010 12:49 am

MonteCristo wrote:Ya i do think there is MORE to the summoning spell than even the caster who made it know.
sure they said it would find a warlord anywhere in existence, but could they really comprehend what that could possible entail... anywhere in erfworld, sure, anywhere in their unvierse ok, but other dimensions/universes that do not operate on erfworld's logic? phew...

Hell even though Wanda's the one who found out about the spell and used it, she was the one who believes that it was erfworld wished for parson... could be that there is more turth to that than we know, like erfworld hijacked the summoning spell for it's own ends... like erfworld can't do these things itself, it needs that extra helping hand; the lord only helps those who helps themselves and all that... it could be that if anyone else were to use the summoning spell, all they would get is the best warlord in erfworld, and not parson or anyone else from another universe.


The spell was made to find the best warlord for GK yes? I imagine if Parson wouldn't suit a different side who used it it would bring someone else.
I would be a procrastinator, but I keep putting it off.
User avatar
the_tick_rules
 
Posts: 966
Joined: Mon May 11, 2009 11:36 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Reactions

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests